-Durga Kunwar
As we move deeper into the twenty-first century, the notion of a “global community” ceases to be an aspirational idea and appears an unavoidable reality, albeit with a price tag. Ours is a world defined by complex interdependence-economically, politically, and socially. The era in which nations could act in isolation is over. Every policy decision, no matter how local its intent, carries global consequences. Recent Iran-U.S. standoff is enough to paint a picture.
Consider India’s 2016 demonetization policy. Aimed at curbing black money domestically, it inadvertently destabilized rural economies in neighboring Nepal, where Indian currency was widely used. Thousands were left holding now-worthless bills-proof that domestic decisions can send unpredictable ripples across borders. Or look to Venezuela’s 2019 political crisis-though over 9,000 miles from Kathmandu, it forced Nepal into a delicate diplomatic dance between competing global powers. These examples show that distance is no longer a buffer in geopolitics. In today’s world, policymaking must extend beyond borders.
It’s not just political or economic decisions that transcend geography-social and legal reforms do as well. When India’s Supreme Court decriminalized same-sex relationships in 2018, it sparked debate and activism in Nepal, where such topics had long been taboo. That court ruling-though confined to India’s jurisdiction-reverberated across societies through media, civil society, and cultural exchange. In many cases, global decisions inspire or disrupt local priorities without direct intervention. Perhaps no issue illustrates this better than climate change. Melting glaciers, extreme weather, and biodiversity loss recognize no sovereignty. From coastal cities to Himalayan villages, no country can confront environmental collapse in isolation.
This evolving global order renders traditional understandings of sovereignty obsolete. Effective governance in the 21st century demands foresight to anticipate global disruptions, agility to respond to them, and commitment to sustained, multilateral dialogue. Foreign policy is no longer the concern of elite institutions alone-it is central to public health, migration, energy, and development. Disengagement is no longer neutral; it is a liability. Countries that ignore the external dimensions of policy making do so at their own peril.
In this interconnected world, Nepal’s geopolitical location takes priority- both as its greatest challenge and immense opportunity. Sandwiched between China to the north and India to the south, east, and west, Nepal occupies a uniquely sensitive position in Asia. Had Nepal not being so strategically situated and north-south neighbors progressing with fast-tracking economic development, Nepal wouldn’t had been a nation-state to attract so much international attention. This geography is a reality and so does is the proximity impacts of neighborhood on domestic policies, and therefore unquestionably demands a foreign policy based not on political insularity but on geo – strategic position over political divisions. However, while addressing near neighbors and far allies- the traditional doctrine of Nepal as a non-align nation must remain central-but it must be reinterpreted. In the 21st century, non-alignment does not anymore offers passive neutrality but demands a strategic flexibility. In the current global reality, neutrality is undesirable. Nepal must maintain equidistance, avoid entanglement, and foster constructive relationships with both regional powers and the broader international community. Does recalibrating Nepal “buffer state” will address this reality?
This is no easy question to respond with. But any deviation under any connotation-whether overt alignment or quiet disengagement under any “ism”-could jeopardize Nepal’s sovereignty and autonomy. In a region increasingly shaped by great power politics and competition, Nepal’s strength lies in its ability to stand firm on principle while staying pragmatic in practice.
Over the last few decades, Nepal has undergone one of the most dramatic political transformations in modern history- from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy, then to multiparty democracy, and finally to a federal democratic republic. These changes have been, by and large, peaceful. Nepal has even managed to integrate formerly militant political factions into the democratic mainstream-a rare feat globally. Yet despite these accomplishments, political instability- eighteen government in last 20 years- continued to undermine foreign policies of Nepal.
Governance has too often fallen short of democratic ideals and diplomats have flaunts protocols more often than consciences accepts. Waves of political and economic instability have made it difficult to pursue sustained foreign policies. Even with the government with a new party commanding two third majority in the lower house, Nepal’s internal fragility is at stark, especially in contrast with its neighbors. While China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and become the world’s second-largest economy, and India has surged forward with foreign investment and infrastructure expansion, Nepal remains among South Asia’s poorest countries. However, with pragmatic foreign and economic policies, India and China, have achieved the rocket development within three decades. With the new government given the Nepal’s extraordinary natural wealth-particularly in hydropower and water resources- time has come to shift focus from managing political transitions to delivering accountable governance and strategic growth.
Nevertheless, the real threat lies within the political polarization and widening gaps. Nepal’s political dysfunction and economic stagnation are not just internal failures-they represent plethora of missed opportunities exposing Nepal’s strategic vulnerabilities. Without urgent reform in governance, economic planning, and foreign policy, Nepal may continue to fall behind. The question isn’t just why Nepal has struggled- but is why it failed to keep up pace with its neighbors, despite undergoing similar political reforms.
A fuller answer also lies beyond domestic shortcomings. During Nepal’s most vulnerable periods, multiple foreign actors sought to shape its trajectory-often prioritizing their own strategic interests over Nepal’s unique requirements. The divergence between Nepal and China, which in the 1980s appeared to share a comparable development starting point, now underscores the impact of pragmatic planning versus political volatility. While India pursued long-term strategies, Nepal became entangled in what can only be described as a web of political entrapment. This divergence calls for a sober reassessment of Nepal’s sovereignty, strategic dependencies, and international alignment just as India envisioned in late 90’s and made rapid expansion of its economy. For today’s Nepal’s scholars and policymakers, this moment demands serious engagement with the tools of international relations. Understanding why Nepal faltered while others advanced requires not just historical insight, but geopolitical awareness and development planning.
Given Nepal’s strategic location-caught between a rising China and an assertive India-there is little margin for error. In this delicate environment, a pragmatic, principled, and non-aligned foreign policy is not optional; it is imperative. Nepal must build strategically balanced relationships-not just with its neighbors, but also with broader global partners. This demands a shift from ideological geopolitics to practical geo-economics. The priority must be regional integration, trade, investment, and infrastructure development-not symbolism or sentiment.
A trilateral approach focused on trans-Himalayan connectivity offers particular promise. By linking Nepal to the South China Sea via China and to the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean via India, Nepal could transform from a landlocked state into a land-linked hub. But ambition must be tempered by caution. Nepal’s porous southern border and controlled northern frontier demand precise, calibrated diplomacy. The country’s historical identity as the “cockpit of Asia” is once again being tested. But that legacy can be repurposed-Nepal must not become a pawn, but a bridge of cooperation- not surely through reclaiming as a “buffer state”.
Foreign policy, in this sense, therefore becomes a tool of transformation. Geographic advantage alone is insufficient; it must be complemented by economic vitality, strategic foresight, and institutional consistency. Unfortunately, Nepal today lacks a commitment despite of abundant institutional and academic capacity needed to design forward-thinking foreign policy. The policy-oriented think tanks, trained diplomats, and neutral advisors must therefore rise above the political prism and cooperate for the dawn of Nepal’s prosperity.
Nepal’s location, long viewed as a constraint, can become a powerful advantage. But doing so requires more than good intentions. It calls for financial investment, technological capacity, and a vibrant culture of evidence-based policy discourse. Nepal must clearly define both its short-term development goals and its long-term regional strategy. This pivot must be anchored in multilateral cooperation and regional stability. Nepal should recommit to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), leverage its position to attract green investment, and engage actively with both regional and global partners. A proactive foreign policy, grounded in mutual interest and democratic principles, can only yield envisioned enormous dividends.
Disclaimer: Durga Kunwar is a former Deputy Inspector General of Nepal’s Armed Police Force and a veteran of UN peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Liberia, and Darfur. He is a Public Policy Expert (George Mason University, USA) and Country Risk Analyst (Cornell University, USA), and a Human Rights Consultant (United States Institute of Diplomacy and Human Rights), and writes on governance, security, and democratic accountability. Opinions and views are personal.
